'Soda Tax' Wins Health Experts' Support

Reader Comments
Back to article

this is a waste of time.

bob of SC 1:31PM November 18, 2009

it doesnt make sense to be subsidising high frotos corn syrup and then try to tax it extra. apart from that, this tax is a major injustice. we should have the right to choose with out government influence

sadfasdf of MS 12:06PM November 13, 2009

The soda tax would reduce soda consumption, but this alone is not enough to address obesity. People can get the calories they lack from sodas elsewhere-- chocolate milk, for instance, has just as many calories as sodas. The government might get better results and see a greater reduction in obesity if it used subsidies to grow more fruits and vegetables, thereby reducing their costs. Produce is becoming more expensive each year. Really, it's no wonder people succumb to the cheap, unhealthy foods available today. Cheaper produce would encourage healthier lifestyles than taxing sodas. Here is a blog devoted to discussing the soda tax: http://thesodatax.blogspot.com/

Kaylene Morrill of UT 7:09PM November 02, 2009

Isn't it disengenuous to allow soda and other junk food to be obtained with food stamps in many states, and then act like it's about caring for peoples health that is behind this tax...(oh and the revenue for the health bill is just an added bonus).

Peg of WA 6:53PM October 22, 2009

I for one am all for taxing soda. However I am also for educating people on what they choose to put in ( or not put in) their bodies, and holding them responsible for their actions. So yes we should do both, and maybe even raise health insurance for those who have PREVENTABLE diseases Related to their diet including type 2 diabetes, hypertension, coronary heart disease, heart attack, etc, while at the same time lowering the cost of health insurance for those who are healthy. I don't mind taxing soda. I do think that mandatory education is imperative on nutrition. And I don't believe that it is right for healthy people to have to pay for obese people's diabetic supplies and other health issues.

Sdhank of OR 5:36PM October 18, 2009

This report seems more political than scientific.
Think about it...
First, the powers that be identify a villain that everyone can rally against...Obesity (see also terrorism and communism)
Then they prove their case with "facts"...scientific research (see sat photos of WMDs)
Then they provide a solution...soda tax (see Gulf War 1 & 2)
Soda Tax = Tax Grab
http://healthhabits.wordpress.com/2009/09/17/soda-tax-tax-grab/

Doug 2:19PM September 17, 2009

Clearly a better idea would be to tax everyone who doesn't have a brain washing chip installed in their heads. That way we can definitely fight the obesity problem AND cut down on civil unrest. If you want to continue to have free will or use the free market, then the taxes you pay to be brain-chip free will pay for all of the social programs that we will implement: like brain-washing chip installation clinics.
This country makes me sick.

Edmund of PA 12:06PM September 17, 2009

The problem here is not Soda per se. The problem is that high fructose corn syrup does not make an impact on the brain telling us that we've had enough (any) calories. HFCS is a sugar substitute that the brain doesn't recognize which is why so many of us can drink a 64 oz Super Gulp from 7-11 and still want more. Drinks (even sodas) made with real cane sugar don't fool our brains and we can feel full after drinking a 12oz can. The real problem is not just that HFCS is in sodas, it is in juice, breads, cereals, and many other "regular" foods. We are eating more than ever because we're not feeling full after consuming food sweetened with HFCS. Servings have become bigger since HFCS hasn't let us feel full. We've been able to eat super sized value meals because it's in the hamburger buns and it's in the soda (the 2 most filling parts of the value meal).
If this country is going to get to healthy weights by taxing unhealthy food, tax HFCS and force the manufacturers to use organic or cane sugar sweeteners if any at all. Soda manufacturers who use high quality ingretients will be squeezed tighter in the market for a problem they're not solely responsible for. Irresponsible food manufacturers (using HFCS) will continue to be safe while their products keep making obesity and diabetes our biggest health problems.
High fructose corn syrup is not allowed in any significant quantities in many other countries around the globe. At the same time, they have McDonalds and Burger King and Coca Cola but lower instances of obesity and diabetes. Why do we still allow HFCS it in our breads, juices and sodas by the truckload?
I suggest that you read your food labels carefully to avoid artificial sweeteners. This country will never change. Disease is profitable for the health care industry and taxing the wrong things that don't solve anything make money for the government. Good luck, America.

david of NM 11:36AM September 17, 2009

We have enough taxes for "privilages of living in this country" now comes entertainment tax which they must include sugars, high fructose corn syrup (candybars, cookies and what not) then sex.

Ashok Patel of IL 9:25AM September 17, 2009

Finally, sanity prevails.
As a contract public health dentist in Alaska I've flown to many arctic villages in bush planes seated next to a cargo of soda pop--the genesis of my employment. The resulting horror stories of dental extractions on infants and juveniles cannot be told here.
Jump to the adult population....in 2004/5 I flew C-130s to the South Pole, seated in the jump seat behind the pilot because the plane was chocked full of Mountain Dew. Diesel fuel cost $19/gallon to transport to Pole--imagine the cost of soda if you include the salary of a dentist. And the "polies" wintered over without any further dental care.... All billed to us tax payers.
OK--what about the rest of us? It's possibly, no, definitely worse if you factor in long term obesity, hypertension, diabetes and heart disease. I'm in favor of a tax on any added sugar to any food product, just like alcohol and tobacco. Sugar is more ubiquitous, pervasive and detrimental to one's health than the other two.

Doug Leen of AK 1:23AM September 17, 2009